Casey Anthony trial...

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454
Casey Anthony trial...

Hey girls, so what are your thoughts on the trial thus far? Is the state's circumstantial evidence on Casey Anthony enough to convict her of murder? Do you think the state even has a case? I think she's guilty as sin, although I haven't seen the state prove without a reasonable doubt that she herself physically murdered little Caylee. If you were on the jury, would you convict based on the evidence?

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

She's guilty and it couldn't be more obvious.

TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147

The defense strategy so far seems to be confusion. Most of their scientific stuff has been confusing and they seem to be talking in circles. Baez seems to be a real tool.

But, yeah. I say she is guilty.

BTW, did you guys know that Zanny is street slang for Xanax? Seems a little ironic.

adding:
I think her mom is lying and her brother was hiding something. I also really hope they put Casey on the stand. She has lots of 'splainin to do.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Of coures this kind of sheet always happens in Florida. We gots a lots of the crazies.

She is guilty 100%. I don't buy the pool BS. However, I think something is really fishy that the child who they say has not been away fromt he grandparents for more then a day, goes missing, and it takes them amonth and a trunk that smells liek dead bodies to finally call the police and demand to know where she is. As the prosecutor was stating the timeline of the month Casey was missing, I kept thinking, why did no one force that woman to take them to the child?

The grandparents hold some responsibility. Not legally, but morally.

TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147

"culturedmom" wrote:

Of coures this kind of sheet always happens in Florida. We gots a lots of the crazies.

She is guilty 100%. I don't buy the pool BS. However, I think something is really fishy that the child who they say has not been away fromt he grandparents for more then a day, goes missing, and it takes them amonth and a trunk that smells liek dead bodies to finally call the police and demand to know where she is. As the prosecutor was stating the timeline of the month Casey was missing, I kept thinking, why did no one force that woman to take them to the child?

The grandparents hold some responsibility. Not legally, but morally.

Yeah, me either. Why would one tape the mouth up of an already dead body?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I refuse to watch or read anything about it, and am completely puzzled by what seems to be America's fascination with this.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"Potter75" wrote:

I refuse to watch or read anything about it, and am completely puzzled by what seems to be America's fascination with this.

For me it hits very close to home, literally. For months it was on the local news and I'm just crushed by what that poor baby endured. I want to see justice served and I want Casey to spend the rest of her life in prison.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Potter75" wrote:

I refuse to watch or read anything about it, and am completely puzzled by what seems to be America's fascination with this.

Well when you live so close to the area as I do, it is impossible not to watch the news or commercials about the news or read the newspaper or listen to the radio without it coming up in some form every single day. I agree that it shouldn't be and i wish it wasn't, but not much I can do about that. She is a pretty White girl from a nice community....of course she is going to be all over the news.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

I refuse to watch or read anything about it, and am completely puzzled by what seems to be America's fascination with this.

It's not close to me, as I live in Las Vegas... but I did live in FL for a long time. Plus, my DD is the same age as little Caylee was when she was murdered, and every time I look at my little princess it makes me sick to think that a mother could do that to her beautiful daughter. Plus, on a weird side-note, the day that they found Caylee's body was ironically the day that my daughter was born. I remember laying in the hospital holding DD and watching this horribly sad story...

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Starryblue702" wrote:

It's not close to me, as I live in Las Vegas... but I did live in FL for a long time. Plus, my DD is the same age as little Caylee was when she was murdered, and every time I look at my little princess it makes me sick to think that a mother could do that to her beautiful daughter. Plus, on a weird side-note, the day that they found Caylee's body was ironically the day that my daughter was born. I remember laying in the hospital holding DD and watching this horribly sad story...

Yeah, that is why I refuse to read about it or watch it. It makes me sick, too, and I don't like to feel sick. Nothing in my life will be better by gloming on to some sick effed up story which ends with the death of a child. I won't learn anything, or be a better parent or wife or anything else. Hence why I can't imagine using my time to watch this sick display of this lunatics 5 minutes of fame.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

I can't stand to watch the trial, either. Everytime they recount the story of what "might" of happened, it makes me ill. I hope justice is served, I do think the Mother is guilty and that the parents hold at least partial respondsibility for not making sure the little girl stayed safe. But I am ready for it to be over...

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I can't stand to watch the trial, either. Everytime they recount the story of what "might" of happened, it makes me ill. I hope justice is served, I do think the Mother is guilty and that the parents hold at least partial respondsibility for not making sure the little girl stayed safe. But I am ready for it to be over...

What do you mean by this? Did they have an indication that she was in danger?

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

I haven't been following daily, but have been following. I think as a juror the state has a lot of holes in their evidence. At least enough for reasonable doubt.

The emotional part of it wants to convict, but not sure if they have presented enough.

On another note, I live in Orlando and am sickened by how many people locally and nationally are tuning into this trial as 'entertainment'. It is about the horrible death of a little girl, not supposed to be a news sensation. (I actually can't pay attention to so much of it because it makes me so sad for everyone who loved that little girl)

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What do you mean by this? Did they have an indication that she was in danger?

They claimed that they saw the granddaughter daily, they had raised her pretty much - but yet don't report the toddler missing until a month later? That doesn't strike you as odd? It does me, and obviously millions of other people considering it's been brought up in the trial.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

They claimed that they saw the granddaughter daily, they had raised her pretty much - but yet don't report the toddler missing until a month later? That doesn't strike you as odd? It does me, and obviously millions of other people considering it's been brought up in the trial.

But they did ask about her... and she kept coming up with stories about how she was out of town for a few weeks and stuff, and they had an argument before she moved out. Who would think that their daughter would kill her baby? That would be the farthest thing from my mind. I don't think a month is that unreasonable a time for them to finally say enough and get tired of the excuses.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But they did ask about her... and she kept coming up with stories about how she was out of town for a few weeks and stuff, and they had an argument before she moved out. Who would think that their daughter would kill her baby? That would be the farthest thing from my mind. I don't think a month is that unreasonable a time for them to finally say enough and get tired of the excuses.

I disagree. They claim to have seen the little girl daily for two years; then they go a month without any site or sound of the little girl? Most people would be suspicious well before a month had passed; or at least the grandparents I know would be.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I disagree. They claim to have seen the little girl daily for two years; then they go a month without any site or sound of the little girl? Most people would be suspicious well before a month had passed; or at least the grandparents I know would be.

You must know some morbid grandparents. If I had a daughter and we had an argument and she moved out I wouldn't assume after not seeing her or the child for a month that she killed the baby. The thought wouldn't even cross my mind that my own child could do something like that. I would probably think that she was still mad at me and paying me back by not letting me see my grandchild. It's not like she was coming over every day without the little girl, they didn't see Casey for that whole time either and she barely answered their phone calls.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

Why would it matter? Aren't both sides estimating the date of death to be June 16th? The day after Father's Day; the day after they last saw her. Could they have somehow changed the outcome if they had pressed her further on Day 2? Day 27?

Or if you believe the defense, she drowned in George's presence. He could have easily assuaged his wife to wait another day and call Casey again.

Unless you think they were negligent in leaving the latter down that lead to her drowning.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"elleon17" wrote:

I haven't been following daily, but have been following. I think as a juror the state has a lot of holes in their evidence. At least enough for reasonable doubt.

The emotional part of it wants to convict, but not sure if they have presented enough.

On another note, I live in Orlando and am sickened by how many people locally and nationally are tuning into this trial as 'entertainment'. It is about the horrible death of a little girl, not supposed to be a news sensation. (I actually can't pay attention to so much of it because it makes me so sad for everyone who loved that little girl)

I don't think people are making it into "entertainment" as much as they're completely sickened that a mother could do something so dispicable to her beautiful daughter, and they want to watch and hear every minute to make sure that this scumbag gets put away for life.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Um, them "watching every minute" in no way "makes sure" of anything or sways the jury's verdict in any way.

Of course people are watching this out of pure voyeuristic entertainment purposes. People love to feel outraged and better than other people and unnaturally sad about dead white children (especially beautiful ones!).

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You must know some morbid grandparents. If I had a daughter and we had an argument and she moved out I wouldn't assume after not seeing her or the child for a month that she killed the baby. The thought wouldn't even cross my mind that my own child could do something like that. I would probably think that she was still mad at me and paying me back by not letting me see my grandchild. It's not like she was coming over every day without the little girl, they didn't see Casey for that whole time either and she barely answered their phone calls.

What a rude assumption. I don't know any "morbid" grandparents, rather loving ones that check on their grandchildren several times a week. And frankly, if I lived with my parents or my daughter was at their house daily...I would completely expect them to be suspicious if all of a sudden I wasn't bringing my kid around.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

What a rude assumption. I don't know any "morbid" grandparents, rather loving ones that check on their grandchildren several times a week. And frankly, if I lived with my parents or my daughter was at their house daily...I would completely expect them to be suspicious if all of a sudden I wasn't bringing my kid around.

I guess I tend to see the good in people instead of assuming the worst possible scenario.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I guess I tend to see the good in people instead of assuming the worst possible scenario.

As do most people, I would assume. Your point? Are you even reviewing the case facts or just wanting to interject personal opinion? If they THOUGHT something happened to the child which they did think according to testimony that I've read/heard, any RESPONDSIBLE LOVING grandparent would have reported it. I don't automatically think someone would harm my child, but if she disappeared for a month after seeing her daily...uh, yea, I would be more than slightly concerned.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

As do most people, I would assume. Your point? Are you even reviewing the case facts or just wanting to interject personal opinion? If they THOUGHT something happened to the child which they did think according to testimony that I've read/heard, any RESPONDSIBLE LOVING grandparent would have reported it. I don't automatically think someone would harm my child, but if she disappeared for a month after seeing her daily...uh, yea, I would be more than slightly concerned.

But you are blaming them because they didn't report it FAST enough. They were obviously concerned since they called their daughter to try and see her. They didn't think something happened to her UNTIL they found the car and it smelled like death. Just how long would be acceptable to you? It is easy to say now that everyone knows what happened, but even if they had reported it before then it is doubtful that anyone would have believed them. Casey was an adult and had the right to move out of their home with her child. I just don't get blaming them for not thinking the worst immediately.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

As do most people, I would assume. Your point? Are you even reviewing the case facts or just wanting to interject personal opinion? If they THOUGHT something happened to the child which they did think according to testimony that I've read/heard, any RESPONDSIBLE LOVING grandparent would have reported it. I don't automatically think someone would harm my child, but if she disappeared for a month after seeing her daily...uh, yea, I would be more than slightly concerned.

Again, what difference would the degree of concern make? If she died the day after they last saw her, would an "appropriate" degree of concern somehow change the outcome?

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Starryblue702" wrote:

I don't think people are making it into "entertainment" as much as they're completely sickened that a mother could do something so dispicable to her beautiful daughter, and they want to watch and hear every minute to make sure that this scumbag gets put away for life.

No they are making it entertainment here. I am no joke 10 miles from the courthouse right now. Talk radio is spoofing nancy grace coverage of the trial daily (can't stand Nancy Grace, but that's beside the point). Another made t-shirts Belvin is my homeboy and that's just the little things.
People are waiting in line to see it in the courthouse at the crack of dawn to be one of the 50 people. There are rumors others are selling their seats in the courtroom on ebay.
1/2 the people I know are listening, streaming, watching it live everyday.

I know that many are sick of this, but there is a definite sensationalized aspect to this specific trial. The Yates trial which was a horrible crime to children was not publicized or sensationalized as this one.

I think that part of it is because of her behavior and a lot because she was young and attractive and people wanted to see those pictures of her partying when they couldn't find her little girl.

The whole thing turns my stomach and I can't wait for it to be over.

Minx_Kristi's picture
Joined: 01/02/09
Posts: 1261

Noelle, that is just sick.

I feel gripped by this trial and it isn't because I find it entertaining. I have always wanted to be a detective and as heart breaking as these things are, I find it fascinating from the perspective of the Feds. It's hard for me to put into words why it interests me, it just does.

Right now, I am not sure what to think. I think the fact that Caylee wasn't reported missing until after a month had passed points the finger at Casey. Whether the grandparents should have reported it sooner, Caylee's mother never which says a lot.

I think the grandparents are for some reason, trying to cover Casey's back..... although it seems like her Dad is turning on her.

I don't know - I deep down think it was Casey.

xx

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But you are blaming them because they didn't report it FAST enough. They were obviously concerned since they called their daughter to try and see her. They didn't think something happened to her UNTIL they found the car and it smelled like death. Just how long would be acceptable to you? It is easy to say now that everyone knows what happened, but even if they had reported it before then it is doubtful that anyone would have believed them. Casey was an adult and had the right to move out of their home with her child. I just don't get blaming them for not thinking the worst immediately.

I am not placing full blame on them, but they've said over and over that their level of concern for the safety of their Granddaughter was high. It's all personal speculation at this point until all details of the case are out in the open. Personally, if my Granddaughter was missing for a month and my daughter was telling me one very ODD story after another, I would have turned her in sooner.

And it DOES make a difference. They could've found her body sooner maybe?

Joined: 06/22/10
Posts: 5602

"elleon17" wrote:

No they are making it entertainment here. I am no joke 10 miles from the courthouse right now. Talk radio is spoofing nancy grace coverage of the trial daily (can't stand Nancy Grace, but that's beside the point). Another made t-shirts Belvin is my homeboy and that's just the little things.
People are waiting in line to see it in the courthouse at the crack of dawn to be one of the 50 people. There are rumors others are selling their seats in the courtroom on ebay.
1/2 the people I know are listening, streaming, watching it live everyday.

they showed people fighting each other to get inside on the news....

oh, and she is guilty no doubt. she can fake cry all she wants

TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147

I guess the jury wasn't watching the same case as the rest of us.
:/

Joined: 06/22/10
Posts: 5602

ridiculous. she will probably be out in less then a year and walk. i guess throwing your baby in a swamp and lying about it to go and party is ok

TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147

I heard she will probably get out Thursday.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

Yeah, she's been in for almost 3 years and i think they credit pre-conviction served time different than post-convicton. Thus she'll walk out with time served. I would like to see the judge give her the max on all the other counts.

Is a judge allowed to come out and say what he thinks? Like in this case could he say they got it wrong in his opinion? (I don't know if he really thinks that, but i am curious.)

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Yeah, she's been in for almost 3 years and i think they credit pre-conviction served time different than post-convicton. Thus she'll walk out with time served. I would like to see the judge give her the max on all the other counts.

Is a judge allowed to come out and say what he thinks? Like in this case could he say they got it wrong in his opinion? (I don't know if he really thinks that, but i am curious.)

Yes, absolutely he can. Canadian judges very often will voice their opinion about the trial, the accused, and the verdict, and I think US judges are able to do the same thing (and I base that on the fact we're both common law countries, but I could be totally off on my opinion). But I think I've watched a few televised US trials where the judge has basically 'gone off' on the defendant even though he's been found not guilty. Judges really just oversee and guide things, and instruct the jury. Unless it's a trial without jury, a judge really doesn't have much input at the end other than sentencing based on the jury's decision. A judge might not personally like a jury's decision, but for the most part (s)he's bound by it. Of course there are exceptions, and there are several. I think that's why some judges come out with some very strong opinions as they're about to pass sentence!

We just had a verdict here (either today or yesterday) in Canada in a trial where a father - a very well-respected cardiologist - stood accused of killing his 2 very young children. It was a sickening crime. He was found not criminally responsible (by reason of insanity), and he'll probably do some time (maybe a few years) in a mental institution, but based on the brutality of the crime, IMO he should be locked up forever. Unfortunately in Canada, even if he was sentenced for the maximum for first degree murder, that's only 25 years before you're eligible for parole.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I have not followed this very closely, but you can't help but hear about it now. It is all over the place. I have always believed innocent until proven guilty. The way our government works is that you are given a trial and if the jury after reviewing all the evidence finds someone innocent, then legally they are. I can not imagine what it would be like for my 2 year old to die under any circumstances.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

Yes, absolutely he can. Canadian judges very often will voice their opinion about the trial, the accused, and the verdict, and I think US judges are able to do the same thing (and I base that on the fact we're both common law countries, but I could be totally off on my opinion). But I think I've watched a few televised US trials where the judge has basically 'gone off' on the defendant even though he's been found not guilty. Judges really just oversee and guide things, and instruct the jury. Unless it's a trial without jury, a judge really doesn't have much input at the end other than sentencing based on the jury's decision. A judge might not personally like a jury's decision, but for the most part (s)he's bound by it. Of course there are exceptions, and there are several. I think that's why some judges come out with some very strong opinions as they're about to pass sentence!

We just had a verdict here (either today or yesterday) in Canada in a trial where a father - a very well-respected cardiologist - stood accused of killing his 2 very young children. It was a sickening crime. He was found not criminally responsible (by reason of insanity), and he'll probably do some time (maybe a few years) in a mental institution, but based on the brutality of the crime, IMO he should be locked up forever. Unfortunately in Canada, even if he was sentenced for the maximum for first degree murder, that's only 25 years before you're eligible for parole.

I heard about that. I'm torn on insanity defenses because of Hinkley. Would he have received a shorter sentence for attempted murder of the pres. than the 30 years he's been in a mental institution?

Joined: 06/22/10
Posts: 5602

well, her daughter went missing and for over a month she made up lies about where she was and didn't seem to give a crap that she was missing as she was out partying and getting tattoos. Several months later they find the baby dumped in a swamp with duct tape over her face all with items from the anthony home. The car has traces of chloroform and several people testified the trunk smelled like a dead body was in it. she throws her parents under the bus during the trial and the defense goes with a story that makes NO sense about caylee drowning and casey's dad being a molester etc, etc. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense. I don't give a crap what the jury decided no mother waits an entire MONTH to do anything about her missing baby.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

I'm not going to be a very popular post.......I don't think the state proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and the jury came back with the only verdict they could with the evidence (forensic and not).

Not guilty in a court of law does not mean Not guilty.

Personally, I think it is fishy. I think there is more to the story than what has been speculated and pieced together and I think that something bad happened.

But, I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and I think that the media and majority of society has not upheld that with this trial. She was presented as guilty until proven innocent and in some circumstances (Nancy Grace, etc) guilty until punished with a local hanging for all to see. The vittirol that has come before she was given a day in court is IMO not what our court system is intended to provide society.
Sometimes guilty people go free, sometimes innocent people go to prision. It may be flawed but its intention is to protect those accused and make the state present a case that is beyond reasonable doubt (not all doubt, but reasonable doubt)

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"elleon17" wrote:

I'm not going to be a very popular post.......I don't think the state proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and the jury came back with the only verdict they could with the evidence (forensic and not).

Not guilty in a court of law does not mean Not guilty.

Personally, I think it is fishy. I think there is more to the story than what has been speculated and pieced together and I think that something bad happened.

But, I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and I think that the media and majority of society has not upheld that with this trial. She was presented as guilty until proven innocent and in some circumstances (Nancy Grace, etc) guilty until punished with a local hanging for all to see. The vittirol that has come before she was given a day in court is IMO not what our court system is intended to provide society.
Sometimes guilty people go free, sometimes innocent people go to prision. It may be flawed but its intention is to protect those accused and make the state present a case that is beyond reasonable doubt (not all doubt, but reasonable doubt)

This is what has been bothering me. It seems that the burden of proof is so high, how are innocent people convicted? Specifically the West Memphis 3. Based on everything I've seen on tv and read, I can't see how this happened. It seems like some towns will do anything to punish someone.

The other question I have is about Caylee's cause of death. Now that Casey has been acquitted, due in part to the prosecution failing to show how she died, can the Anthony family petition to have her cause of death changed from homicide to accident?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I am not placing full blame on them, but they've said over and over that their level of concern for the safety of their Granddaughter was high. It's all personal speculation at this point until all details of the case are out in the open. Personally, if my Granddaughter was missing for a month and my daughter was telling me one very ODD story after another, I would have turned her in sooner.

And it DOES make a difference. They could've found her body sooner maybe?

If my granddaughter was missing for ONE DAY I'd have called the cops. If they didn't listen to me, I'd hire a private investigator & I'd give him everything I could to find her, including keys to my daughter's car & home if I had them.

And if they'd found the body sooner there could very well have been more forensic evidence that could have led to a conviction or pointed to someone else so Casey didn't sit in prison for three years.

I'm not sure I believe that Casey Anthony *killed* her daughter, but I'm certain that she was at fault. Perhaps left her in a car on a hot day? Gave her a pill to get her to sleep early one night so she could have a party? I'm curious why manslaughter or second degree murder weren't options for the jury. I was really surprised the prosecutors went for first degree murder when they couldn't even tell how or when or where the child died.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

This is what has been bothering me. It seems that the burden of proof is so high, how are innocent people convicted? Specifically the West Memphis 3. Based on everything I've seen on tv and read, I can't see how this happened. It seems like some towns will do anything to punish someone.

The other question I have is about Caylee's cause of death. Now that Casey has been acquitted, due in part to the prosecution failing to show how she died, can the Anthony family petition to have her cause of death changed from homicide to accident?

I do think that we are a little to "CSI" and wanting conclusive forensic evidence, but I'm not sure that was 100% of the reason this jury voted not guilty. We will have to wait and see if they open up to their reasoning.

I'm not sure about changing the cause of death.